Segregation of scripts?
Cyrillic in the linguistic landscape of Brčko, Bosnia and
Herzegovina
Master thesis Human Geography, University of Amsterdam Course code: 7354102004
Abe Datema 5739632
abedatema@gmail.com
2
Foreword ... 4
1. Introduction. ... 5
1.2 Relevance ... 6
1.3 Names and acronyms. ... 7
2. Theoretical framework ... 9
Map 2.1 The location of Brčko within Bosnia, In red the RS in blue the Federacija. ... 13
Research questions. ... 15
3. Methods and data collection ... 17
3.1 Methods ... 17
3.2 Data collection ... 17
4. History of Bosnia Herzegovina and Brčko. ... 22
Map 4.1 The situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1997, after the DPA, before the Brčko arbitration. ... 23
Map 4.2. The situation in Brčko before(grey line) and after(red line) the arbitration. ... 25
5 The linguistic policy in Bosnia and Brčko. ... 31
Figure 5.1. Pack of cigarettes displaying the message: Smoking Kills(Left) and Smokers die young(Right) ... 34
Figure 5.2 A multi-lingual sign in Brčko ... 38
Map 5.1 Map displaying the location of the war memorials in city centre... 42
Figure 5.3 The Serb war memorial in the city centre, displaying the Serb coat of arms. . 43
Figure 5.4 The Croat war memorial, displaying the Croat coat of arms... 43
Figure 5.5 The Bosnian war memorial, Displaying the Bosniak national symbol a Fleur-de-lis ... 44
Figure 5.6 A nationalist message is obscured on the wall of the office of a Croat political party ... 45
6. A divided city? ... 46
Map 6.1: Centre of Brčko, in red the area defined as Centar. ... 50
Map 6.2: Kolobara ... 50
Map 6.3: Srpska Varoš ... 51
Map 6.4: Ilićka ... 52
3
Figure 7.1 Tri-lingual road signs ... 53
Figure 7.2 Manhole cover with two scripts... 54
Figure 7.3 Street signs in Brčko displaying two scripts in random order. ... 55
Figure 7.4 Old streetname above and new streetname below ... 57
Figure 7.5 Red Star in Cyrillic ... 59
Figure 7.6 A wall filled with graffiti ... 59
Figure 7.7 Erased graffiti ... 60
8. What reasons are there for using a script? ... 64
Figure 8.1 Road sign entering Srpska Varoš ... 71
Figure 8.2 Street names that remained after the neutral policy came in force. ... 72
Figure 8.3 A sticker put over Latin script ... 73
9. Conclusion. ... 75
10. Discussion. ... 79
11. Limitations and recommendations for future research. ... 80
11.1 Limitations ... 80
11.2 Recommendations for future research. ... 80
References. ... 82
List of respondents. ... 85 Front layout picture By Abe Datema, 2015
4
Foreword
Ever since I have started my studies in Human Geography years ago, the Balkan region has fascinated me. This sometimes lead to raised eyebrows as in the Netherlands some people tend to see the Balkans and especially former Yugoslavia as a war torn, violent place where nationalist politician abuse their power and where its backward people are only able to wage war and not much else. This image is fed by messages about the events at Srebrenica during the last Yugoslav war, Bosnia and Herzegovina seems to be a horrible place where you just don’t go. My experience has from the start been the opposite of what some media and others unknown to the region make me believe. Even though my research is in some case related to an ongoing conflict and in a way still reveals great differences within a community, I have also seen that some peace building exercises in Brčko do seem to pay off. It is however sad to see that many people have little trust in each other or indeed in the future, many express their desire to leave the country and build a future elsewhere. Many people looked at me for an acknowledgement of their beliefs about the country, that it is indeed a horrible, third world country one should leave as quick as possible, some people even went as far as saying a war will break out soon. I refuse to see Bosnia and Herzegovina that way, although there are a lot of problems concerning unemployment and corruption by government officials, I feel a lot can be changed by the current generations, Brčko is a place where the first signs of this can be observed especially the mixed school system is a good start to break the ethnic divide in the country.
Furthermore the month spent in Bosnia has been a fantastic experience which I will always look back upon with fond memories. The people of Brčko have been very hospitable. I have always been welcomed and people displayed eagerness to talk and at some occasions have even invited me into their homes and offered me dinner. Others have done their utmost to teach me how to swear in their language, which has not been useful to me so far but maybe in the future will serve a purpose.
I would also like to thank a few people along this way: Milos Majinovic for making me feel at home and introducing me to a lot of people and practices in this community I had never been before.
Vanja Stokic, who not only helped me get an apartment in the city centre of Brčko, but also helped me get into touch with people who helped me with my research. Furthermore I would like to express my admiration for Vanja, who’s persistence and determination in her own work and daily life could serve as an example to a lot of people in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Willemijn Pheifer for editing my thesis, but more importantly for supporting me throughout my entire research and trying to keep me motivated.
Finally, I would like to thank Virginie Mamadouh for all the feedback and guidance she has given me throughout the process of finding a topic, a research question and finally a full draft of my thesis.
5
1. Introduction.
Three men sit in a coffee shop in Sarajevo, a Croat, a Bosnian and a Serb. The waiter asks what they want to drink. The Croat says: Kava, the
Bosnian: Kahva and the Serb: Kafa/кaфa. To which the waiter replies: Three espresso coming up! (Joke in Bosnia, told to me by Lazar).
The scene mentioned above may seem exaggerated but actually it is quite close to the truth. More than once in Bosnia and Herzegovina I have been corrected when conversing over a cup of coffee that I ordered coffee the ‘Croat’ way. My pronunciation, probably with a strong Dutch accent, sounded more like ‘kava’ than ‘kafa’ and my companion, somewhat jokingly, corrected me by saying that the proper way to say it in this bar is ‘kafa’. I managed,
eventually, to order my coffee as ‘kafa’, however by that time I had arrived in Zagreb, where I was once again corrected by a waiter. With a smile he said: I’m sorry sir but we serve ‘kava’. Although the coffee example seems to be only a small issue to joke about with tourists, the linguistic situation in the republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina does resemble the two examples mentioned here. Language is used to denote distinctness from the other groups. Even though the differences may be small and seem insignificant the language is often subject of debate and is often used by ethnic groups to mark a clear boundary.
Bosnia and Herzegovina is a country with a complicated past. A country divided by a violent civil war which lasted from 1992 to 1995 and which has impacted every layer of its society. After the war the opposing parties agreed to a solution in which all three ethnic groups; Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks, would gain equal rights. The country was divided into two entities, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Federacija), which consisted mainly of Croats and Bosniaks, and the Republica Srpska (RS), which was predominantly Serbian. Even though some regions have multiple ethnic groups living side by side, a large divide exists within society. The differences, between ‘us’ and ‘them’, and how they are exploited in Bosnia is described in an article by Dahlman and Ó Tuathail, 2005. They describe the appropriation of land by different entities in and after the Bosnian war and the implications of this policy. (Dahlman and ‘Ó Tuathail, 2005). In the years that followed, Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks all made efforts to distinguish themselves from each other. In general these distinctions where made on religious grounds, but language also plays an important part in the making of national identity.
All these issues persist up into today in Bosnia where the ethnic conflict, which ended now almost 20 years ago, is still visible. Apart from battle-scarred urban centres, ghost towns and lots of cemeteries in the landscape, the landscape and urban environment of Bosnia is heavily influenced by symbols placed by ethnic groups. Most common is the use of flags by the dominant ethnic group in a certain territory. However the use of language and script also has a significant symbolic presence in expressing ethnicity.
In Bosnia there are three state languages; Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian, formerly united in the Yugoslavian era under the name Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian. The language, like the
6 republic was a unified one, however two scripts were used: Latin and Cyrillic. With the fall of Yugoslavia, its national language fell as well and the three aforementioned languages were each standardized by the linguistic union of the republic it was spoken in. The Croatian and Bosnian speaking groups only use Latin script, whereas the Serbian language opted to keep using the Cyrillic.
The Cyrillic scripts find their origin in the eastern orthodox church. Besides the Serbian Cyrillic script there are also Cyrillic forms of Bulgarian, Russian and Greek (Greenberg, 2004. p. 43). The use of Cyrillic is an important difference between the linguistic groups as it is used by Serbs and not by Croats and Bosniaks, this can still be recognised in the public space today.
This thesis will focus on the symbolic use of language, more specifically on the use of the Cyrillic script in the urban landscape and the way it is used to appropriate the public space in the Bosnian and Herzegovinian town of Brčko. Brčko’s history and current political situation makes this a perfect town for a linguistic landscape analysis. The findings in this thesis are primarily based on empirical data gathered in a fieldwork conducted in the town of Brčko between April 10th and the May 3rd 2015.
The outline of the thesis is as follows: Before I focus on the specific case of Brčko town, I will present a literature study about the symbolic use of language in general I will then go on to explain my methods as well as present my research questions. In the following chapters I will present my analysis based on the results of my fieldwork in Brčko. The thesis ends with a conclusion and a discussion on the topic of the linguistic landscape study.
1.2 Relevance
With this thesis I want to contribute to the academic debate and show how linguistic landscape analysis can be used to describe a symbolic or semiotic conflict in an urban environment. The linguistic landscape research has already been done in a similar urban environment in Bosnia. Gabravac conducted a linguistic landscape research in the city of Mostar. Grbavac calls Mostar ‘the’ most suitable town for a linguistic landscape research, as it is a multilingual and multi ethnic place with live language contacts and conflicts (Grbavac, 2013). I would like to go one step further and argue that, for several reasons, Brčko might be an even more perfect place for linguistic landscape research. First of all the city of Mostar is clearly divided between the east and the west, the Neretva river serving as a boundary and effectively has two different centres, a Croat and Bosniak. The city of Brčko also shows signs of division but there are some places where people mix (Jeffrey, 2005; Bieber 2005).
Secondly, Grbavac describes a lacking linguistic policy in the city of Mostar with regard to the top-down signs (Grbavac, 2013), whereas in Brčko linguistic policy is one of the focus points of the neutral policy (Bieber, 2005; Jeffrey, 2005).
In this thesis I hope to provide an insight in the situation of a post-war society and in how symbolic practices are used to appropriate space. In my literature research a lot of articles about Bosnia are on the topic of its ethnic composition, however not many elaborate on the
7 specific situation of the Brčko district. Especially now that the High Representative and the international supervision have been suspended and the district has to stand on its own feet, Brčko becomes more and more interesting as an object of research.
1.3 Names and acronyms.
The following list contains terms, acronyms and names I use in my thesis. The first three are with regard to ethnicity. I have decided on these terms because I deem them to be appropriate and it provides a clear distinction between people.
Bosnian: A citizen of the republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Bosniak: A person who is of the ethnic group whose majority is of the Muslim faith, often referred to as Bosnian Muslims or simply Muslims by others.
Četnik: Member of a Serb nationalist royalist guerrilla in world war II, now used by Croats and Bosniaks as an insult to a Serb who displays nationalist feelings. Croat: A person of Croat ethnicity, whose majority is of the Christian Catholic Faith Croatian: A Person who has the Croatian citizenship.
Bosnian Croat: A Person who is of Croat ethnicity but lives in Bosnia.
Serb: A person of Serb ethnicity, whose majority is of the Eastern Orthodox Faith Serbian: A person who has the Serbian Citizenship
Bosnian Serb: A person who is of Serb ethnicity but lives in Bosnia.
Yugoslav: A person who was a citizen of Yugoslavia and today still identifies as such. Ustaše: A member of the Croatian fascist party in world war II, today an insulting term
for a Croat who displays nationalist feelings. The following list is of acronyms and terms used in the thesis. Bosnia: The republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
8 Distrikt: The Brčko district, formerly known as Brčko Opstina, the word is used to
differentiate the town of Brčko from the District.
DPA: Dayton Peace Agreements, treaty which ended the Bosnian war in 1995, at Dayton decisions were made about the division of Bosnia between the entities. Federacija: The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Bosniak-Croat entity in Bosnia
and Herzegovina.
IEBL: Inter entity boundary line. The line that divides the two entities in Bosnia and Hezegovina, Agreed upon at Dayton. The line roughly follows the frontlines as they were at the end of the Bosnian war.
International supervisor: The representative of the international community in Brčko. OHR: The office of the High Representative. An international body which makes sure
the DPA is properly implemented in Bosnia
9
2. Theoretical framework
Language serves a very important purpose which is known to all of us: communication. Be it through body language, sign language or the spoken language, everyone uses some form of language to make things clear. But apart from communication, language has a strong
symbolic value as well. This symbolic value of language, together with the script a language is written in, will be the focus of this thesis.
Language as identity.
If we regard language as identity we look at the way language functions to mark human societies by cutting the speakers of that specific language off from those that do not speak the same language (Bugarski, 2011). A good examples is the Pennsylvania Dutch community, who preserve their use of ‘Dutch’ while the world around them speaks American English, thereby maintaining their own community (Safran and Liu, 2012).
Through language one can become aware of himself and his heritage (Ciobanu, 2011). In a paper written on Norwegian, Ciobanu illustrates this by showing the difference between Nynorsk, the language of unified Norwegian dialects, and Bokmal, the Dano-Norwegian language. Both are linguistic standards of the Norwegian language. In the 1960’s and 1970’s Nynorsk became the topic of a campaign where the Norwegian language was seen as the most important symbol of Norwegian culture, thus favouring Nynorsk over Bokmal. The
preference for Nynorsk was also a symbolic gesture towards the Bokmal, as it stood for the rejection of oppression of the Danes and Danish language over Norway and the Norwegian language (Ciobanu, 2011).
Language is a strong marker of identity as it a very useful tool to exclude people, which in turn strengthens the feeling of ‘We’ and thus labels the other group as ‘Them’ or the ‘Other’. Paasi argues that language is the most extreme expression of difference (Paasi, 1996, p. 47). Language and script can be used to bind a group of people through common traits, and
exclude others through the use of a different script. A larger division between different groups can arise if a language in the school curriculum is not included or only one script is used, excluding the non-speakers of the language. Or simply not recognising their individual language right can be a symbolic practice aimed to exclude others (Dragojevic, 2005). Even-Zohar notes that language has always gone hand-in-hand with the sense of a collective identity and that it has been used as a tool to strengthen national identities over more
heterogeneous populations in the past as long as the proposed national identity is not
disagreed upon by the peoples on who it is imposed. She further adds that language in itself is seldom a subject of conflict, however when conflicts do arise about identities within a specific region, language becomes an important semiotic marker of identity to the point where even minor details of language suddenly begin to matter (Even-Zohar, 2005).
10 The choice of script can also serve as a symbolic marker, as is shown in the paper by Safran and Liu. They describe how scripts have been changed by regimes to differentiate certain languages from their standard form to move them away from certain religious ties. They describe how the Soviets made changes in the Cyrillic writing of the Yiddish language to obscure its Hebrew origin. The same was done by the Chinese when they standardized the Kazakh and Uyghur languages in the Cyrillic alphabet, the idea was that this isolated communities in China from other Muslim communities in central Asia who spoke the same language (Safran and Liu, 2012).
In some cases the change is with regard to the language and script of the majority language, the Romanians for example chose to write their language in the Latin script as opposed to the eastern Cyrillic. This was done to stress their Latin heritage of the language and to oppose the eastern orthodox church. In Turkey, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the Turkish
language started to use the Latin script to appear more Westernized but more importantly to state their secularity, as Arabic was the script of the Islamic faith (Safran and Liu, 2012).
Language as Identity in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Language is important in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bosnia), as the elite tend to be more and more secular, therefore religion no longer functions as the main trait of an ethnic group. (Dragojevic, 2005). This practice is very much going on in Bosnia. Along with the collapse of the Republic of Yugoslavia from 1991 onwards and later with the division of Bosnia in 1996 came the collapse of the Serbo-Croatian language. This was the only official language of Yugoslavia and even though different scripts were used, it was the only state language. After the Yugoslavia had dissolved, the languages of the separate new republics each went their own way. Croatia had Croatian as official language and Serbia had Serbian.
In Bosnia this posed a problem as two if the three ethnic groups (Croats and Serbs) living within its territory, didn’t recognise the proposed official language of the country: Bosnian. In resolution, a system was introduced where each of the three largest minorities could speak and be educated in their own language. This made the country trilingual, with no official state language but with three recognised national languages and two official scripts; Latin, the script of the Croat language and Cyrillic the script of the Serbian language. Bosnian officially uses both scripts, but in practice the Bosniak ethnic group uses Latin as their script (Pupavac, 2006).
In Bosnia every entity, the Federacija and the Republika Srpska introduced or imposed their own majority language on their territory. Whether these are valid claims or merely political and symbolic acts, is debatable. Bugarski (2011) argues that the dissolution of Yugoslavia and Serbo-Croatian into different states and languages has strengthened the borders between the republics that used to constitute Yugoslavia. The use of the Serbo-Croatian language
strengthened Yugoslavia’s external borders and softened the internal borders. Now that every group speaks and uses its own language it strengthens the former internal borders. Bugarski (2011) stresses the fact that language is a very strong marker of national identity. Sen (2009) backs this argument, stating that in the Serbian parts of Bosnia, the Republika Srpska, the use
11 of the Cyrillic alphabet becomes more prominent and the overall use of language as a marker of national identity becomes more important than religion, which is usually the main indicator of difference between the ethnic groups. What several scholars observe is the importance of the language that all three ethnic groups use. As it becomes a clear marker of identity, and it creates a border between ‘us’ and the other (Urciuoli, 1995; Troncota, 2011). The choice of language seems a peculiar one as the ethnic groups are usually defined through their religion. However, language is an important tool as it provides political elites with a more secular tool than religion. Sen observes that:
“Language ensured that the secular political elite maintained a monopoly over the articulation of Serb national identity in Bosnia-Herzegovina” (Sen,
2009).
Dragojevic observes the same:
“Language was the “ideal” new trait for the construction of a national identity at the time of Croatia’s independence, because not only did it reinforce the existing ethnic boundary but it also provided the secular elites promoting late 20th-century nationalism with a superior status and
influence within the new state (Dragojevic, 2005).”
Sen adds that the choice of alphabet is used because it:
“creates a clearer boundary around the Serb nation as, despite nationalist claims of distinctness, Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian (all remnants of
Serbo-Croatian) are languages that remain especially similar to each other.’ (Sen, 2009). “
Language, and in the Serbian case script, thus became an important marker for identity. This is also true for the educational system in some parts of Bosnia where there is a great divide between the groups and even great resistance in sharing a school with another ethnic group. In the Federacija they employ the policy of two schools under one roof, where both Croat and Bosniak children attend school in the same building but do not attend the same classes or are on the same curriculum. Although this policy is politically motivated, it does have linguistic implications as the children are only taught in their ‘own language’(Pasalic Kreso 2009). This strengthens the linguistic border between children at an early age.
Language in the public space.
Language can also be used to appropriate public space. The public space can be defined as a scene where society’s public life takes place. Streets, parks, squares and all areas outside. According to Ben Rafael et al. (Ben Rafael et al. 2006). The linguistic landscape of a public space carries a crucial socio-symbolic importance as it identifies communities or regions. A Linguistic landscape can be regarded as the visual representation of language throughout a
12 specified area. These representations could be: Shop windows, advertising posters, road signs, street names, art, graffiti, flags etc. (Gorter, 2013). But also vandalism, as it is a clear negative sentiment towards an idea or language. (Ben Rafael et al. 2006) Public space is not neutral but an active negotiated and contested arena. This is a practice observed by Gorter. In a case study of Jerusalem he saw that space is appropriated by a linguistic group, the Hebrew community. They don’t make up the majority of the population but through the linguistic landscape of Jerusalem it looks as if they do (Gorter, 2013). Language is important in the public space:
“Public space, lived spaces are battlefields of ideological conflicts and tensions. The public space is not neutral, it is rather “a negotiated and
contested arena”(Grbavac, 2013).”
She demonstrates just that in her Linguistic Landscape study of the city of Mostar in Bosnia.
Appropriation of the public space.
The appropriation of the public space is a strong indicator of inclusion or exclusion. As shown in the article by Grbavac (2013), the linguistic landscape of Mostar shows mostly Croatian signs and significantly less Bosnian language in the predominantly Croatian side of the city. Therefore it indicates that the area is primarily Croatian, even though Bosnians may live there. The linguistic landscape indicates a strong appropriation by the Croatians through language. Ben-Rafael et al. argues that a linguistic landscape has both an informational and a symbolic marker, as it informs people on what is going on, e.g. where you can buy your bread. But it can also be an indicator of the dominance of a certain group in multilingual societies, as is shown in his Study on Israel. (Ben-Rafael et al., 2006).
With the knowledge I have of Brčko I feel that the same type of study could be used for the city of Brčko. The city is officially multi-ethnic and is generally regarded as a success story in state building, however literature suggests that a spatial divide between the groups is still visible (Bieber, 2005; Clark, 2010). A linguistic landscape study can provide a good
indication on whether or not this is the case. In my study I focus on the use of Serbian Cyrillic script in public, as it is a clear marker for Serbian language.
Why Brčko
Within each territory in Bosnia the dominant language is that of the linguistic majority. So within the Serbian Republic you will predominantly see Serbian Cyrillic and in the Federacija the language use will be mostly Bosnian/Croat Latin (Sen, 2009). The two cities in Bosnia where the struggles between the ethnic groups that live there become most apparent are Mostar and Brčko (Bieber, 2005). In Brčko, like in Mostar (Bieber, 2005). there is no clear, recognised majority and because of its policy it is officially multilingual. Mostar would have been a suitable place for a linguistic research had this not already been done by Grbavac. (Grbavac, 2013). Furthermore, the governmental structure of Brčko is different than that of Mostar. The position of Brčko district within the sovereign state of Bosnia is a special one. It is officially declared as a neutral, self-governing administrative unit under the sovereignty of the state of Bosnia and Herzgovina. The territory itself is part of both entities in Bosnia
13 (Dahlman and ó Tuhotail , 2005). the Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia
(Federacija). The district is inhabited by Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats.
The reason why Brčko became a point of interest for all ethnic groups is because of its strategic location. Exactly between the eastern and western part of the RS. Before the war the Serbs were the third largest ethnic group living in the district, only being the largest in the city of Brčko. However, during the war many Croats and Bosniaks fled and were ‘replaced’ by Serbian refugees who fled to Brčko from elsewhere, thus making the district predominantly Serbian. During the peace negotiations at Dayton, Brčko became an important issue as both Croats and Bosnians refused to give up this piece of land to the Serbs. Therefore it was only after the negotiations that Brčko received the special status it has today. Although it is self-governing and formally not part of the RS, for Bosnian-Serbs Brčko is still of huge strategic importance (Bieber, 2005).
There is a growing concern about the future of Bosnia, as politicians in the separate entities each use nationalist rhetoric to increase the divide between the ethnic groups and are even opting for a referendum on independence in the case of the RS (Toal, 2013; & Toal, Maksic 2011). Clark (2010) observes that there is a difference in observations regarding Brčko. The top-down view is generally favourable, calling Brčko a success story; the bottom-up view reveals a more fragmented society in the city of Brčko (Clark, 2010). This is in some way seen in the election results of the national elections in 2014, where the nationalist parties of all three ethnic groups claimed the victory (The Guardian, 13 October 2014).
Map 2.1 The location of Brčko within Bosnia, In red the RS in blue the Federacija.
14 I have established that language plays a prominent role in shaping a collective identity.
Furthermore language is often used as a symbolic tool by groups to claim otherness or distinctness and they will also use language to exclude others from their society. The same can be said for the use of script, which can serve either to indicate belonging, for example using Serbian Cyrillic to emphasise the ties with the eastern orthodox church; or to widen a gap, for example the use of Latin script for the Turkish language to emphasise the secular nature of the country. The public space often serves as an arena for linguistic struggles, as the public space is often a contested arena subject to ideological struggles. This can be
implemented on the case of Brčko, Bosnia as its policy recognizes three languages spoken there. But these languages all carry a certain symbolic value, and the use of script has an important value as well. All these factors combined make Brčko a suitable research area.
15
Research questions.
The literature indicates that use of language or script in public can serve as a clear symbolic and semiotic marker of identity. Knowing that in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina the use of Cyrillic script is an important marker of identity by the Serbs and is seen as offensive and oppressive by others entities, the focus of this thesis will be on the use of the Cyrillic script. My research area will be the City of Brčko. In this thesis I will answer the following research question:
How is the Serbian-Cyrillic script used by Serbian speakers to appropriate the public space in Brčko and to what extent does this appropriation indicate ethnic segregation within the city?
To get a better idea of the processes behind the appropriation of space, I have divided my research question into several sub questions.
First of all, I will look into the background of the ethnic and linguistic policy in Brčko and how this plays out in the public space. Of all the administrative districts in Bosnia, Brčko is the only which has a trilingual policy and two official scripts on its road signs. The history of the policy and its perceptions of the residents will be addressed with the following question:
What is the background of the ethnic and linguistic policy and the use of the different scripts in the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and how is the linguistic policy perceived in Brčko?
Apart from the difference in the use of language, some literature suggests that the town of Brčko shows signs of ethnic segregation. To evaluate whether or not this is the case and whether or not there are any markers indicating this segregation, I will try to answer the following question:
Where are the perceived boundaries between different areas in Brčko town and does the linguistic landscape correspond with the perceived boundaries?
The next question regards the use of the Cyrillic script in the public space and aims to identify the differences in its use between private persons and public institutions. Policy dictates that all public institutions should have its signs strictly in two scripts, but some literature suggests that this policy does not necessarily have to be enforced (Grbavac, 2013). Furthermore, private persons are free to choose the language they use on their store or café, which should create an interesting contrast between the public and the private. The question to answer:
How is the Serbian Cyrillic script used in public in Brčko and what is the difference in the use of script between top-down and bottom-up institutions?
The last question to answer concerns the group that uses the Serbian language on their shops. I am interested in finding out why they use the Cyrillic script opposed to the Latin script on
16 their storefront, or maybe if they use other symbols as well to indicate their Serb heritage. The question to answer is:
How does the Serbian language group in Brčko distinguish themselves in the public space and what are the reasons for using a different script?
17
3. Methods and data collection
3.1 Methods
My research is based on three types of data collection: a linguistic landscape study, mental mapping and interviews with people in Brčko. I will present the results of the data collection in the analytical chapters of this thesis and it will be used to answer the following research question: How is the Serbian-Cyrillic script used by Serbian speakers to appropriate the
public space in Brčko and to what extent does this appropriation indicate ethnic segregation within the city?
In the data collection I will make a distinction between so called top-down and the bottom-up representations of language. This is based on the theoretical framework by Ben-Rafael et al. (Ben-Rafael et al., 2006). Top-down representations of language are Public buildings, such as government institutions, hospitals, schools, road signs and street names. Bottom-up
representations are shop signs, graffiti texts, public announcement signs and posters in the public space. The difference between top-down representations and bottom-up representations is important, as the paper by Grbavac has shown that the top-down representations in the city of Mostar are not consistent with the policy (Grbavac, 2013). The bilingual policy in Brčko only applies to public buildings and institutions, shop keepers and business owners are free to choose their own script (Jeffrey, 2005).
In other places in Bosnia I have encountered vandalism towards representations of other languages. These negative representations of language are worth analysing for they show the sentiment towards a certain group. I will treat those representations as a separate category, as they shows a more aggressive form of linguistic landscape.
3.2 Data collection
I conducted the data collection during fieldwork in Brčko town between April 10th and May 3rd 2015. I used three methods of data collection. I spent the first week doing a mental
mapping exercise with several different respondents. The mental maps were used to gather an idea of spatial awareness of the city and to determine which areas would be best suited for the linguistic landscape research that was to follow. For the mental mapping was I made use of an smartphone application Maps.Me. The Respondents were shown map of Brčko and asked to show which areas had what meaning to them and what areas they perceived as being Serb, Bosnian or Croat. However with the first two respondents it turned out that they had trouble reading a map and even struggled with street names in the city. They often mentioned geographical features such as rivers and forests but those were not found on the map.
Buildings were also often used as points of reference. In response to this situation, I adjusted the research procedure. I asked the respondents the same questions and wrote the ensuing answers down. Based upon these notes the I could establish the way the city was perceived by the respondents and was also able to establish which areas were to be researched in the
18 Some of the respondents of the mental mapping exercise were gathered using a snowball sample, where I asked previous respondents to put me in contact with people who might be willing to cooperate. Others were asked if they would cooperate after I had asked them on the street or at other locations such as a coffee shop or the library. The only criterion held was that they live in Brčko district. There were linguistic limitations, mainly due to the fact that I do not speak any of the local languages, therefore I had to conduct the exercises in English. This somewhat limited the research sample in age range, as most of the older residents of Brčko are not sufficient in English. The youngest participant was 16 and the oldest was 38. All respondents were interviewed in a one-on-one setting, either on the terrace of a coffee shop, in the public park or in their homes. In the outside setting there were few distractions and in the coffee shop the interviews were never disturbed.
My aim was to do these mental mapping exercises with representatives of all three ethnic groups living in Brčko. However, it turned out to be very difficult to find Croat respondents. Every respondent said that they knew Croats, but that they either did not live in Brčko, did not have the time or did not want to cooperate. That is the reason why I have only found one Croat to participate in the exercise. The data sample does include more Serbs and Bosniaks; in total 12 Serbs and 11 Bosniaks participated in the exercise. After the first week I had
established the areas of research, on which I will elaborate later. Quotes and conversations from these exercises will also be included in the analysis, they are mainly used to answer the following questions:
What is the background of the ethnic and language policy and the use of the different scripts in the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and how is the language policy perceived in Brčko?
And:
Where are the perceived boundaries between different areas in Brčko town and does the linguistic landscape correspond with the perceived boundaries?
I spent the next five days doing a linguistic landscape research in four areas of the city. Using another smartphone application, Virtual Counter, I counted all visual representations of language. Visual representations of language include amongst others; signs or posters, shop windows, shop signs, street signs and painted text. Concerning shops the text was only counted if it was part of the shop itself or its own advertising, not the products sold there. As explained earlier, I made a distinction in the Linguistic landscape between top-down and bottom-up representations. Apart from signs in the public space, graffiti and vandalism was also counted. In the case of graffiti I counted the script and in the case of vandalism I counted the script that was obscured or vandalised. The categories I used were, for signs: Cyrillic, Latin, Bilingual, other. For graffiti: Cyrillic, Latin and Bilingual. Vandalism: Towards Cyrillic or Towards Latin. In total I counted 1766 signs both top-down and bottom-up. The results were uploaded into an excel file and provided with a label of the area in which they were counted, so they could be compared with each other. I will include the results of the linguistic landscape analysis as tables in my analysis. They are used towards answering answer the following questions:
Where are the perceived boundaries between different areas in Brčko town and does the linguistic landscape correspond with the perceived boundaries?
19 And:
How is the Serbian Cyrillic script used in public in Brčko and what is the difference in the use of script between top-down and bottom-up institutions?
The last part of my research consisted of conducting interviews with shop owners. The shops were found during the linguistic landscape research and through the conversations I had with Brčko residents. All shops that I approached, displayed more Cyrillic than Latin script on their shop window. Because I had previously established that many people struggled with English, the interviews were conducted with the help of an interpreter. The interpreter was a Serb citizen of Brčko who, according to himself, looked like a Muslim to other Serbs. The interviews were conducted during working hours and most of them were unannounced. Every shop owner took the time to answer our questions. All the shops we visited were open for business during the interviews, however while taking the interviews no other costumers were in the shop. Only two shop employees were interviewed at a different location, I conducted these interviews in English and without the presence of an interpreter.
The interviews with shop owners were short and semi-structured, I always started with the question: ‘Why do you use Cyrillic as your store script?’ Other questions followed in response to their first answer. In total I have been able to interview 13 shop owners who had primarily Cyrillic script as their shop front. Parts of the interviews will be included in my analysis, I have used these interviews with shop owners to answer the research question:
How does the Serbian language group in Brčko distinguish themselves in the public space and what are the reasons for using a different script?
In addition to these short interviews with Brčko shop owners I have had a focus group interview with three persons who graduated as linguists and are all residents of Brčko. This meeting was arranged prior to my arrival in Brčko. The interview focused on the differences in language in Bosnia, the linguistic situation in Brčko, the political situation in Brčko and the town in general. Some quotes of this interview have also proved useful for my research, they are included in my analytical chapters.
Lastly, a lot of inspiration and several findings in my research have come from observations and photographs I made in the field. I included these pictures as figures throughout this thesis. Establishing the proper areas of research would have been difficult if I had not gone out in the field and kept my eyes open. Even though the people of Brčko were willing to share lots of insights with me, some issues only were spoken of when specifically asked. For example, topics with regard to ethnicity or ethnic differences are not exactly taboo but they only come to the table when asked upon directly. Several findings in this research have come to light because my own observations sparked a conversation or discussion. These findings will also be described in the analysis.
All the quotes used in the analytical chapters are transcribed in the exact way they were stated by the respondents. This can sometimes lead to confusions as some groups address each other differently. The people I call Bosniaks in my research, for instance, often refer to themselves as Bosnians, whereas Serbs prefer to call them Muslims because they also see themselves as
20 Bosnians (citizens of Bosnia) albeit Bosnian Serbs. No one uses the term Bosniak, that is a term coined by the international community.
There are two reasons why I made the choice to only conduct fieldwork in the town of Brčko as opposed to the greater Brčko District. Firstly, literature suggested that the town of Brčko displayed a greater mixture of ethnicities than the surrounding villages. (Dahlman, 2005). Secondly, there was a time constraint. To use the same methods of data collection in the villages would have taken more time than I could spare. Furthermore, upon arriving in Brčko several respondents told me that visiting the villages would not be possible without an interpreter, and that it might be dangerous for a foreigner to go there alone. The village of Islamovac was supposedly dominated by Salafist terrorists according to some Serb
respondents. I cannot judge the truthfulness in those claims, but in all fairness this image did not appeal to me and I took that into account as well when I decided not to include villages in my research.
Experience and influence on data gathering.
My presence in Brčko attracted the attention of several different people. The fact that I was a foreigner who was clearly not visiting for political reasons, sparked their interest. In my first days in Brčko many people who were able to speak English, or at least somewhat spoke English, came to me and wanted to talk to me about everything. I do not think their interest in my presence has influenced the answers of the respondents to the questions I asked them. Many people seemed to want my confirmation in stating that their situation is horrible and that Bosnia and Herzegovina is a third world country.
Ethical considerations.
In my research I labelled people as being either Serb, Croat or Bosniak. In doing so it is unavoidable to skip over a more nuanced view and somewhat roughly put people in boxes. For this thesis I have specifically been looking for people who mainly associate with one of these three ethnicities. Apart from these three ethnicities, there are other groups in Brčko. For instance in the Brčko census throughout the years there has been a certain amount of people identifying mainly as Yugoslav, and there may still be people identifying as such, however I have not found any. It is also important to note that, even though Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats are grouped together in this research, their behaviour is not uniform. Lastly, I have not
included any people of mixed ethnicity or even regarded them as a possible subject, I have not met anyone who identified as such, every respondent I spoke to identified as being either ‘this’ or ‘that’, even though some people have mixed parents. My experience on another occasion in Mostar, has been that the person I spoke to was of mixed descent, his father being Bosniak and his mother Croat. He identified as being ‘Bosnian’ (what I call Bosniak in this research).
I am well aware of the ethnic tensions that have been prominent in Brčko over the last decades. I have always avoided the subject of war or the ‘other’ group directly in conversations and interviews. All questions have been about the perceptions of the
21 respondents themselves or about their choices regarding script. I have never started
conversations or steered conversations towards the topic of the war.
All names of the respondents used in the analysis are made up to ensure their anonymity, for the same reason I included little information about the shops so as not to them top easily identifiable. The opinions in the quotes are those of the respondents and they do not reflect my own. The interviews were conducted with the utmost respect to each individual and every ethnic group living in the city of Brčko, there has been no intention to stir ethnic tension or upset specific groups.
22
4. History of Bosnia Herzegovina and Brčko.
In this chapter I will present a historical overview of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Brčko district. The chapter serves as the historical context for my analysis. I have tried to describe the processes in the past as accurately as possible to make it clear what the current situation is in Brčko. Firstly, I will start with a short history on Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Bosnia and Herzegovina is a country located in the northeast of the Balkan peninsula. The country has had a tumultuous past. Over the last two centuries the country was ruled by different countries or regimes. Starting with the Austro-Hungarians who ruled present day Bosnia up from 1878 until the fall of their empire at the end of World War I. After World War I, Bosnia entered the kingdom of Yugoslavia and was part of that up until World War II , when the kingdom of Yugoslavia was conquered by Nazi troops. The territory of Bosnia was placed under the rule of the Independent state of Croatia, the NDH, which was a Nazi puppet state ruled by the Ustaše. At the end of World War II they were given full republic status within the socialist federal republic of Yugoslavia.
As a place where multiple ethnic groups have always lived side by side, most prominently Muslims, Catholics and Orthodox Christians, Bosnia had the nickname of ‘Little Yugoslavia’. However this ethnical mix made Bosnia vulnerable to nationalism and ethnic violence. The dissolution of Yugoslavia was most felt in Bosnia in a war that lasted from 1992 to 1995. During this war every ethnic group fought for their own territory in which there was no place for other nationalities. This lead to the displacement of a lot of people throughout the country, making Bosnia a highly segregated place at the moment the war ended (Dahlman and Ó Tuathail, 2005).
After the last war in Bosnia and Herzegovina a solution was formed which ensured equal rights and equal governance by implementing an elaborate governmental structure. At
Dayton, Ohio a peace plan was constructed by the US, U.N and the three leaders of the ethnic groups in Bosnia: Alija Izetbegovic for the Bosniaks, Franjo Tudjman for the Croats and Slobodan Milosevic for the Serbs. Leaders of the Croat federation and the Bosnian Serbs were not included in the peace talks. Today, Bosnia still functions on the territorial and
governmental arrangements made at the Dayton peace agreements(DPA). The DPA divided Bosnia into two federations, one belonging to the Serbs called the Republika Srpska and the federation of the Bosnians and Croats, called the Federacija Bosna i Hercegovina, the boundaries of the federation were already agreed upon in march 1994, when both Bosniaks and Croats signed a peace agreement, its primary goal was to form a counterweight against the Republika Srpska instead of being a true peace agreement. (Dahlman and Ó Tuathail, 2005)
The division was mainly based on the front lines and the conquered territories by each faction. The federation comprises about 51% percent of the total territory where the RS comprises
23 49% of the territory. The newly agreed internal border became known as the Inter-Entity Boundary Line (IEBL) and was made 4 km wide to insure a buffer zone between the entities called the ‘zone of separation’. The Federacija of Bosnia and Herzegovina was based upon a peace agreement signed between the Croats and the Bosniaks in Washington, however it does not have a strong central governmental structure, as opposed to the RS which has one central government. To establish equal rights among the different ethnic groups the Federacija was divided into ten autonomous cantons, each with its own government. The DPA were signed in December 1995 thereby definitively finishing the war and deciding the outlines of the new state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. However there were still some disputes unresolved, the territorial divisions of Bosnia and Herzegovina after the DPA are displayed in map 4.1. The most important one was a territorial dispute over the municipality of Brčko (Dahlman and Ó Tuathail, 2005; Jeffrey, 2005).
Map 4.1 The situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1997, after the DPA, before the Brčko arbitration.
24
Brčko
Brčko is the name of both a town and a municipality in the north of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is on the south bank of the Sava River across the border from the Republic of Croatia and has been the home to all three main ethnic groups of Bosnia.
Before the war of independence started in 1992, Brčko was a place where the Bosniaks were the majority, round about 40.000 of a total population of around 87.000 according to the 1991 census. There were around 22.000 Croats and 18.000 Serbs and some other small groups such as Roma or those who identified as Yugoslavs (Brčko census from Wikipedia; Bieber, 2005).
In 1992 the local Serb politicians advocated for a partition of the city so that the Serb
occupied territories could still remain part of the, then still existing, federation of Yugoslavia. In April 1992 the Serb-controlled Yugoslav national army conscripted all able men and sought to achieve their goals through military means. The town of Brčko fell into Serbian hands in May 1992 and the rest of what is now the Brčko district was under control of the joint Bosniak, Croat forces (Dahlman and Ó Tuathail, 2007). Throughout the district roughly 30.000 Croats and Bosniaks were displaced and fled either to Croatia or into other parts of the Federacija. The Serbs succeeded in maintaining a small strip under their control, called the Posavina corridor, serving as a lifeline for the western RS and adjacent Serb dominated regions in the Republic of Croatia. For the Serbs this small corridor was vital to ensure the safety of the western RS, whereas for the other parties it was vital that the Serbs did not have control over this piece of land.
The partition or inclusion of Brčko into one of the two territorial entities proved to be very difficult during the DPA talks. Because of Brčko’s strategic position in the country, neither party was willing to give it away at the arbitration. Brčko borders Croatia, divided by the Sava River, to the north and the Federacija to the south. On both east and west the area was
controlled by the RS. The Brčko district was the only corridor the Serbs had connecting the western RS with the eastern RS and Serbia proper. At the same time, for the Bosniaks Brčko was of importance, as it was the only place where the Federacija was connected to the Sava river, which is vital to their supply- and trading routes to and from central and western Europe. At the moment the DPA was signed in December 1995 the situation of the district was as follows: The town of Brčko was under Serb control (Dahlman and Ó Tuathail, 2007). Just south of the town the Inter-Entity Boundary Line, agreed upon at Dayton to establish the division of the two entities, separated the Town from the Federacija which was in the rural part of the district. This rural part was in itself divided between a Bosnian side, Brčko Rahic to the east and a Croat side Brčko Ravne to the west. Although not divided by an official boundary line, both areas were under strict mono-ethnic control. Thus three different
municipalities existed within the boundaries of the Distrikt. (Dahlman and Ó Tuathail, 2007). The situation of Brčko before and after the arbitration is displayed on map 4.2.
25 Map 4.2. The situation in Brčko before(grey line) and after(red line) the arbitration.
(Wikipedia, 2000)
Due to its strategic significance to all factions and because of the presence of Serbian, Croat and Bosniak forces in the district, the decision over Brčko was not included in the DPA but was planned to follow a year later in an arbitration case. It lasted 5 more years before the final decision over the district was made. When the decision over Brčko was delayed, NATO peacekeepers and international supervisors were immediately stationed in Brčko to prevent any outbreaks of national violence (Jeffrey, 2006; Dahlman and Ó Tuathail, 2007).
When the decision over Brčko was delayed all parties sought to strengthen their case to get what they wanted in Brčko (Bieber, 2005; Dahlman and Ó Tuathail, 2007). The Serbs, wanted control over their corridor, as the Bosniaks and Croats wanted access to the Sava river and to cut off the Serb, ‘lifeline’. During the war many Serbs sought refuge in the town of Brčko, these Serbs mainly came from Sarajevo, Tuzla and other places that are now part of the
Federacija (Bieber, 2005; Jeffrey, 2006). Nationalist politicians urged them to stay in the town of Brčko, so the Serbs could maintain their majority there. At the same time Bosniaks and Croats sought to diminish the Serb dominance in the town by trying to return to the city. Especially Muslims wanted to return, as they were the dominant group before the war started. As Dahlman and Ó Tuathail put it, the battle for Brčko continued politically from 1996 onwards, as the Bosnian and Serbian political parties fought for political dominance in Brčko. (Dahlman and Ó Tuathail, 2007).
26
Post-War Brčko
As mentioned above, a decision in the Brčko arbitration proved to be very difficult, mainly because the negotiators were afraid that a decision favouring one particular group would spark ethnic tensions and lead to violence. A tribunal was created.
The tribunal of the Brčko district was formed by one representative from both the Republica Srpska and the Federacija and was presided by Roberts B. Owen, who was also part of a U.S. delegation at the DPA (Jeffrey, 2006). The tribunal was given cooperation by both Slobodan Milosevic and Alija Izetbegovic and insured that in the case of a stalemate between the negotiators the decision of the president of the tribunal, Roberts Owen would be final. They had the task of dividing or awarding the three municipalities within the Brčko district without erupting violence.
In the first years the tribunal looked into the political and territorial situation but also at the return of war refugees. These returns of war refugees or displaced persons proved to be a problem (Jeffrey, 2006; Dahlman and Ó Tuathail, 2007). In the DPA all parties agreed upon a refugee return policy enabling displaced persons to return to their pre-war homes, this was established in the so called Annex VII. This was overseen by the Office of the High
Representative (OHR) in Bosnia. The office of the High Representative is the international peacekeeping institution in Bosnia which oversees that all the agreements made in Dayton are carried out according to plan. Local governments are forced to cooperate with this policy or else they can be removed by the OHR. The OHR had the power to remove and appoint leaders if they did not cooperate with the agreements made at Dayton or if they engaged in policy blocking also they had the power to enforce the property laws imposed in 1997. The property law ensured displaced persons could return to their pre-war homes. Even though this was a powerful tool, the OHR barely used its power in the first post-war years, although later it was successfully used to impose the property laws in Bosnia. (Dahlman and Ó Tuathail, 2005). In 1997, the tribunal delayed the final award again but did install an international supervisor in a preliminary decision. Brčko was placed under direct
international supervision by the OHR. The international supervisor also served as the deputy of the international supervisor of the OHR in entire Bosnia and Herzegovina. His first task was to oversee the process of returnees to Brčko. The start of the returnee process lead to some unrest in the district as Bosniak nationalists sought to regain territory by sending as much returnees as possible back to Brčko, Serb politicians told Serb displaced persons not to go anywhere but stay in the city. The OHR tried to achieve the opposite of what the Serb nationalists were doing, ensuring Bosniak and Croat displaced persons to re-establish themselves into their lost homes and sending Serbs back to their pre-war homes in the Federacija. Many Serbs could not return to their pre-war homes as they were obstructed to move back, i.e. their houses were destroyed or inhabited by the now dominant group in their former hometown.
On top of that, there was simply not enough living space in Brčko to ensure everyone to return, for large parts of the city and district were destroyed during the war. (Dahlman and Ó
27 Tuathail, 2005). Eventually returnees did come to Brčko in an organised manner. The
returnees had to register their former living space before they could return, preventing
Bosniaks to claim houses or space that wasn’t theirs. At first the returnees started living in the area of the Inter-Entity Boundary Line, because the town was still off-limits to returnees, issued by the OHR. When Bosniaks started to return and build on the RS side of the Inter-Entity Boundary Line, provided safety by the peacekeeping troops there, Serb politicians urged Serbs to started building houses on the RS side of the Inter-Entity Boundary Line as well. Dahlman and Ó Tuathail call this a biological blocking line, intended to scare away future returnees. In an effort to slow down returns, houses in the Brčko district were burned or blown up (Jeffrey, 2006). Even after the returnees started to come back to Brčko the
demographic situation didn’t change back to its pre-war status, many Serbs stayed in Brčko. This caused tensions and unrest in the first post-war municipal elections in Brčko in 1997. The election results were not conclusive as the Serb politicians were accused of electoral fraud, manipulating and using false registrations of voters who did not live in the Brčko district. (Jeffrey 2006, Dahlman and Ó Tuathail, 2007). As a result the Supervisor decided to suspend the assembly and restructure the governance of Brčko along its ethnic composition. This meant that governmental institutions, but also the police force, would be of mixed ethnicity. The local district assembly would be ruled by a president, vice president and secretary, who all had to be of different ethnicity. Also the members of the assembly were to be appointed by the international supervisor instead. This situation remained until 2004, the first time since 1997 when democratic elections were to be held.
The situation in Brčko remained unstable due to non-compliance politics from the Serb nationalist party, the SDS, in the RS who refused to cooperate with the Dayton accords and encouraged Serbs living in Brčko to obstruct the return process, making some people believe that the entire territory of Brčko in 1998 would be handed to the Federacija (Jeffrey, 2006). At the same time in the Federation local politicians did not fully cooperate to make it able for Serbs to return to their pre-war homes.
The final arbitration came in 1999, called the ‘final award’. The Arbitration Tribunal decided not to divide the territory and award it to each entity. Due to political non-compliance of the politicians in the RS and the poor status of war returnees back to the Federacija no entity was ‘awarded’ the territory of Brčko (Dahlman and Ó Tuathail, 2007). Instead it was decided that Brčko was to be a condominium whose territory was held both by the RS and the Federacija, but with an autonomous government only under the sovereignty by the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The award stated that the autonomous Distrikt of Brčko had the boundaries of the municipality as of January 1991, the borders before the war. This meant that the three existing municipalities, the Croat Brčko Ravne, Bosniak Brčko Rahic and Serb Brčko Town were abolished and included into the new formed district assembly (Jeffrey, 2006).
The decision also meant that the Inter-Entity Boundary Line in Brčko was abolished.
According to Owen the Inter-Entity Boundary Line no longer served a purpose as the District was now formally part of both entities. The arbitration ensured that the Posavina corridor, vital to the Serbs, was not lost to the Serbs and remained the lifeline for the western RS. At
28 the same time it gave the Federacija access to the Sava river and gave them a corridor into central Europe.
The final award made Brčko a neutral multi-ethnic district in Bosnia and Herzegovina, a decision which was aimed at breaking the ethnic segregation common to post-war Bosnia. The creation of the district and the establishment on march 8th, 2000 marked the beginning of the democratisation process in Brčko, where a new district assembly had to be established. Even though Brčko had its own government, it was still under supervision by the OHR and the international supervisor. Its main form of government the first four years was not based on democracy but on pragmatism, as the supervisor could still exercise his absolute power to appoint and remove officials in the district (Bieber, 2005; Dahlman and Ó Tuathail, 2007). One of the OHR’s decisions was to delay democratic elections until 2004, this gave parties the time to establish a Brčko-based agenda instead of a national one. According to
Jeffrey(2006), an early election would clearly have favoured the nationalist parties, who could have obstructed the decisions made in the final award. From 2000 and onwards the new situation in Brčko had a positive effect on the number of returns of displaced persons more and more Bosniaks started to come back. They started living in what some people called ‘uncontested places’ (Dahlman and Ó Tuathail, 2005). However problems concerning returns still remained.
There was a lot of false repossession of houses or the selling of repossessed houses, where Bosniaks and Croats sold their repossessed, pre-war homes to displaced Serbs. At the same time the 20,000 displaced Serbs still living in Brčko started to express frustration about their situation. According to Dahlman and Ó Tuathail they were used by politicians in the RS to strengthen their case to include Brčko into the RS, when this tactic failed, these Serbs were left on their own, unemployed and displaced (Dahlman and Ó Tuathail, 2007). According to the property law of the DPA they should have been able to return to their pre-war homes but this proved to be unsuccessful, therefore the international supervisor made sure that these Serbs were also granted the right to stay and live in the Brčko district.
Situation in post-war Brčko Town.
The war left Brčko devastated, as it had been the scene of ferocious ethnic violence. A lot of efforts were made to make the town a neutral and peaceful place. First of all a lot of foreign investments made it possible for the city to be renovated. Today the city bares less scars of the war than I have observed in other parts of Bosnia. Foreign investments helped build an
economy, privatising companies and establishing trade including one of Brčko’s most iconic places: the Arizona Market. This is a huge market located in the southwest of the district. It is cited as a multi-ethnic free trading place, located in a cleared minefield. This is the place where criminal trading thrived: weapons, drugs and prostitutes were all available. After the arbitration the Arizona market was closed and a foreign investor restructured it (Jeffrey, 2006). Today it is still a huge marketplace, but illegal trade goods are reduced to a minimum, although they can still be obtained there someone assured me.
29 A lot had to be done about the symbolic environment of the town of Brčko. In a practice called urbicide the Serbs destroyed all symbols in the city which weren’t Serb. This meant the razing of Yugoslav monuments as well as the destruction of mosques and catholic churches. At the same time as aforementioned, the town of Brčko had been under Serb control for the duration of the war and the urban environment was heavily ‘Serbified’ by erecting a statue of Draze Mihailovic, a Chetnik leader of World War II, who had no ties with Brčko at all, in the middle of the city as well as a large monument commemorating the ‘liberation’ of Brčko by the Serbs. Apart from that all the streets were renamed, giving them Serb nationalistic names. Identity cards given out by the city council just after the arbitration displayed the Serb coat of arms, this was changed into a neutral ID-card by the OHR when Brčko was made a district and the three different municipal councils became one (Jeffrey, 2006). All memories to the multi-ethnic place Brčko had been, were erased in favour of Serb symbolism.
One of the tasks of the OHR in Brčko was to make the urban landscape politically and ethnically neutral, in an effort to reduce the humiliations suffered by returnees (Dahlman and Ó Tuathail, 2007; Jeffrey, 2006). The first steps that were taken were regarding the language the situation. All street names were changed into neutral names. Furthermore from the year 2000 onwards all road signs and street signs were changed into signs displaying two scrips, the Cyrillic and Latin, as they both had official status in the Brčko district and should be treated equally. All three ethnic groups were given the right to use their own language, making the district the only place in Bosnia that has three official languages (Bieber, 2005; Dahlman and Ó Tuathail, 2007; Jeffrey, 2006). Upon its constitution the district has more laws with regard to the ethnic groups living there and the reducing of humiliations or
expressions of hate towards each other in public than other parts of Bosnia. These laws will be addressed later in my research. The laws do however limit the possibilities for politicians but also for individuals to express their national identity. There is only one thing left to be used freely and that is the use of the Cyrillic script, which is officially recognized by the Brčko administration.
The political landscape was relatively quiet after 2004, and Brčko became one of the more prosperous districts in the country. Due to this success in August 2012, the OHR closed its doors in Brčko and suspended the International supervisor for an undisclosed period of time. The OHR and UN hail Brčko as a success story while also acknowledging that still a lot has to be done there. Roderick Moore says on the OHR site:
“Overall, Brčko District has been a Bosnia success story and demonstrates that with a willingness to cooperate and compromise, a multi ethnic democracy can function. The successful post-war recovery of Brčko was the
result of the hard work, determination and confidence of the people of the District and their elected representatives, supported by the international community. Today, Brčko stands as an example of what can be achieved in Bosnia and Herzegovina and, indeed, to what Bosnia and Herzegovina can
30 As Brčko now stands on its own feet, struggles and differences remain. Although not very prominent, the symbolic struggle for the town of Brčko is still evident. In this thesis I will approach this struggle from a specific angle; the use of the Cyrillic script as an ethno-political symbol (Pupavac, 2005). Cyrillic can be used as a symbol for ethnic identity as it is both considered to be Serbian and has close ties with the Orthodox church. The symbolic use of language will therefore be researched in this thesis.
